Prayer made in the present petition is for quashing the order

dated 18.09.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nuh, vide which the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person in NACT-20-

2021, titled as ‘Maksood Ahmed vs. Sabbir Ahmed’.

2. petitioner was summoned in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, wherein, he was never served with any notice/warrants. Thus, he did not appear before the trial Court, whereupon, notices/warrants were issued against him and proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued on 12.08.2025 and statement of the serving official was recorded on 26.08.2025 wherein it was stated that period of 30 days has not elapsed. Thus, the procedure mandated under Section 82 Cr.P.C. had not been followed, as he was declared proclaimed person without affording him the pre-requisite time period of 30 days to appear before the

trial Court. He is ready and willing to join the proceedings and prays that

one last opportunity may be granted to him to surrender before the trial Court. To buttress the submissions, reliance is placed upon judgments in the cases of CRM-M-29878-2022, Sardar Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and another, decided on 30.08.2022, Uttam Sharma vs. State of Punjab and another, CRM-M-31481-2021, dated 29.09.2021 and Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another, CRM-M-13638-

2013, decided on 05.08.2013. 3. Notice of motion.

4. Pairavi Officer, office of the AG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and submits that the petitioner has rightly been declared proclaimed person for having absented.

5. No order prejudicial to the rights of the private respondent is being proposed to be passed by this Court, thus, there is no requirement of effecting service upon him.

6. Perused.

7. It is apposite to refer to the provisions of Section 82 (1)

Cr.P.C. which reads thus:-

“82. Proclamation for person absconding. -

(1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation.

(2) xx xxxxxx (3) xx xxxxxx.”

8. In the present case, proclamation was issued on 12.08.2025 and thereafter, affixation of the notice was made, whereby he was directed to appear before the Court on 26.08.2025. Since, the mandatory period of 30 days to appear before the Court had not elapsed, the case stood adjourned to 18.09.2025, for the period to be completed, which is in teeth of the law laid down in that regard. A gainful reference can be made to the judgment in Ashok Kumar (supra), relevant para of which reads thus:

“A copy of the proclamation was also affixed at conspicuous part of the Court house, which means that the publication was effected on 9.2.2013 for 6.3.2013, which shows that after the publication of the notice, the accused was not given the mandatory period of 30 days to appear before the Court. The mere fact that the Court adjourned it after the period of 30 days will not be treated as compliance of the provisions of Section

82 (1) Cr.P.C.”

9. The aforesaid judgment was relied upon in Uttam Sharma supra), wherein the order of proclamation was set aside, as a clear 30 days time from the date of publication was not afforded before issuing absconding warrant against the accused as per the statutory provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C.

10. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the requisite procedure as mandated by Section 82 Cr.P.C. was not completely followed in letter and spirit, thus, the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of the process and deserve to be quashed, as held in Ramesh Chandra vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC

1634.

11. In view of the afore-mentioned judgments and the facts and circumstanc